For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

TIL Superman flew into a guys room while he was sleeping, knocked him out and dressed him in a spacesuit, flew him to the Moon and put him some place safe, then flew around the world against the rotation of the Earth to move time backwards a certain amount, flew back to the Moon, got the still unconscious guy and flew him back to his hotel room, undressed him and put him in bed, set his alarm to 6am and did this for several years just to fuck with Bill Murray.

Not that I think he's stealing from it in any way, but this sounds pretty similar to how captain america is portrayed in the avengers movie. Also, when the 30 minutes of bonus footage is released (which according to Joss Whedon focuses on captain) on the Blu-Ray edition maybe we'll see some more scenes developing this kind of idea.

It's also kind of similar to superman:birthright. A comic in which Lex is portrayed just as an upstanding businessman, and superman needs to expose him, even after having been shown to be "untrustworthy" to the citizens of metropolis by some of Lex's machinations. Not exactly the same but some similar themes of superman needing to be so good he overcomes the adversity of Lex's propaganda.

This is my main problem with it. It seems like the Avengers planted the seed of this "great idea" into this guy's brain subconsciously. Not to say there aren't other problems... elderly Jimmy Olsen with Lexcorp time travel tech? Hell, the fact that time travel is involved at all is a big red flag. It's the cheapest way of creating a fish out of water scenario.

I think the current Superman movie in production has a lot of potential. With Zach Snyder directing it's uncertain, but with Christopher Nolan producing and writing the story, as well as David S. Goyer (who wrote the screenplay for Batman Begins, and co-wrote the story for TDK and TDKR) writing the screenplay, I see a good chance this movie will be great. I really hope this movie gets Superman back in the hearts and minds of everyone.

"Techdirt reported that due to Reddit's licensing terms, Erwin may not have had full ownership of the story he wrote, and may not have been able to fully transfer those rights to Warner Brothers. Concerns were raised due to Erwin's creation of the story in the Reddit forums occurring with and through participation and input from other Reddit users. The issues then became those of whether or not Erwin actually had the right to grant exclusivity to Warner, and that Reddit itself may own rights to those portions of the story created and shared on their website. While the concept of modern military forces involving themselves in conflicts with less advanced cultures is a common theme in science fiction, in order to claim exclusivity, Erwin may be required to rewrite the story to remove those portions created through input of Reddit users".

I would imagine it would be more of an issue with Reddit, the site itself. The wiki article said that it had to do with the terms and conditions of Reddit. Reddit could very easily relinquish rights on the film and help one of its users out.

I was watching Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull with a friend 4 years ago, and in one scene Indy looks at a picture of his dad and says "Nothing has been the same since he passed away..." (or something along those lines)

In that scene, my friend just casually told me "Oh yeah, he couldn't be in this movie because he died in real-life too." Ever since I've thought Sean Connery was dead.

Something to dream about. Hell, they could even build in a way for the franchise to continue so it would have a chance of ever actually being made.

Shit, they could continue with Bond being promised that the agency will never return its old ways, but it's made clear at the end that they weren't being genuine. A non-shitty multi-movie story arc? Hnnngg.

Wouldn't this sabotage any chance of another Bond film after this one? I mean, it sounds great in theory, in fact, it sounds amazing, but if you destroy MI6 while also creating a timeline, you have removed any more 'Bonds', and therefor, any more movies.

A poster asked what would happen if a platoon of marines were send back in time to the Roman Empire, it made the front page, and subsequently he was contacted by some sort of movie company about producing it as a film.

I thought it went into a stalemate of development hell, since the idea and skeleton of the manuscript were written on Reddit, Conde Nast assumed immediate copyright over all material or somesuch thing.

Actually, some poster asked what would happen. Then someone commented by writing paragraphs and paragraphs detailing it. And that commentor was the one contacted. We had a whole subreddit for it at one point.

OP here. I would cast Tina Fey as Lois Lane for a couple of reasons. 1) She's intelligent, and comes off as intelligent. 2) She's very much a woman, as opposed to a girl. 3) She looks the part. 4) I don't know if you've ever seen the relevant episodes of 30 Rock, but she has crazy chemistry with Jon Hamm, who in my mind was born to play Superman.

I agree that Hamm would probably be a fantastic Superman. The only problem I might have is that I know him too well now. I think I would just be enjoying Jon Hamm as Superman as opposed to just enjoying Superman.

For everyone going nuts about this...here's my first question as a Hollywood exec...

Where's the second act?? This guy has a great ending an a great beginning, but there are zillions of scripts out there like that. What makes a movie is being able to keep your audience engaged for the middle hour. Where the characters have to develop and change, where we actually care what's happening. The part he glossed over was the "twist." Yes it's a good twist, but how does Superman come to realize this? It seems to me that without that being pretty damn clear, his returning in time is going to fall completely flat. Plus it's WAY too convenient that some old guy happened to have the one piece of technology Superman needs to go back and stop Lex Luthor.

I would love to see Superman done properly, but this -- along with many of the recent shitty action franchisees we've seen recently -- has no second act. Let me see a script and THEN let's talk about whether its legit or not.

I would like to reply by pointing out that this guy posted this in a Facebook status update. Clearly, it's rather well thought out in some respects, but that's doesn't at all mean it's ready to be pitched to you guys that actually make these things happen. I think the point is that a Superman movie built from this basic premise would be pretty kick-ass and something a lot of us would pay to see. Beyond that, we'll have to trust you Hollywood guys - or even the original idea-man from FB himself - to develop this into something that would actually gain traction in the industry. Again, we're prepared to pay you to do it.

it's not about corporate greed, it's about the power of the individual. the loss of the american dream. if we could just have something to stand for, then we'd be set...Hollywood loves all that stuff. Superman represents all that.

I think it could work if Lex Luthor tricked Superman into going forward in time to fight some foe...kind of a reverse Terminator thing. Then once he's in the future, he sees how awful it is...goes about fighting his foe, then comes to realize it's Lex Luthor all along. That would give you some amazing plot point where we realize Superman has been duped. THEN Jimmy Olsen (who of course has been telling Superman since the minute he landed that he can get him back in time, but Superman isn't interested) finally convinces him to go back in time and stop Lex once and for all.

and you're totally right. it is an unfinished idea. my point was that lots of people come up with great ideas. but that's all they are...an idea. and even more so, it's unbelievably difficult to come up with an idea that can keep you interested for two hours. they say around here that the second act is where scripts go to die. i think you can add this one to the pile. perhaps everyone can come up with something for Superman to do for that middle hour, but unless its super interesting...the end and the dramatic typing means nothing.

Suggestion for a second act: a false finish, where Superman saves the day, reveals Lex Luthor, and thinks his mission is complete, real boilerplate superhero stuff...then watches the aftermath of this climactic event: first, confused media reports. Then, details emerging--but they're twisted around and confused, not the clear-cut breaking news he expected. There's all sorts of wild speculation, a lot of it pinning everything on Superman. Pundits have a field day arguing for and against. It becomes a media circus. Sure there are protests outside of the LexCorp offices, but there are anti-Superman marches too, and nothing is done. Reporters holding proof are given ultimatums, and choose their careers over the truth (or release it and are resoundingly ignored because it's too complicated and boring). Superman becomes the punchline of every joke. Throw in a lot of finance talk--how is it affecting the stockmarket, what would happen if LexCorp failed, was it so wrong for LexCorp to be engaging in [greatly sanitised version of LexCorp misdeeds]. Etc, etc. Somehow, without any hard and fast accusations or clear misdeeds, Superman ends up looking like the bad guy.

Then, the whole affair is forgotten, and the news returns to reporting about puppy dogs being saved from creeks, political sex scandals, the newest celebrity divorces.

Superman is incredulous--and wanted for questioning. Lex Luthor, who, upon being defeated, laughed at Superman's naivety, spends his time grinning smugly at a bank of monitors. At some point, Superman manages to confront Lex and expresses his disbelief at how far and wide Luthor's power ranges. Luthor just laughs at him: he didn't have to lift a finger, he just sat back and watched it all unfold. Insert a monologue in which Luthor lays out hard truths about modern society--and everything he says should apply exactly to the real world.

I think he glosses over Act 2, but it's there - he realizes he can't change people because they are so apathetic. There's presumably a few sequences built on him trying to prove himself only to realize how futile it is with society so far gone.

My main quibble is the ending - what if he proved he could beat the apathy back? That's a more impressive feat than just "punching Hitler in the face" the way he does now.

it's certainly more dark knight than avengers. my biggest issue with superman is that he's too damn powerful...but perhaps his greatest power was being able to grasp the hearts and minds of a generation. what if he couldn't do that anymore? it's certainly interesting, but not very climactic. gotta have some hitler punching for the common folk.

But seriously, how does the complete garbage get put out in the first place? At some point some exec, like you, had to put eyeballs on paper and read some of this stuff. How do they read these things that are complete shit and think "What a great idea for [tv/movie] this is!"? Is the "shit" less shitty than we peons think? Is it, in the end, still good for the bottom line so who cares?

There's just movies out there that are so bad where I just think "How did this get past anybody!?" Yet, there they are. And it's that much more painful when you see a fan trailer of something cool, or read someone's idea that already sounds 109 times better, but that stuff didn't get the million dollars this piece of crap did.

IMO, it's not so much that shitty stuff gets made, it's that every piece of shit that gets made is one less piece of good that didn't get made.

simple reason. look at what makes money. more importantly look at what DOESN'T make money. its all about the money. also, people don't go to the movies anymore like they once did and DVD sales don't exist. risk goes out the window and we're left with huge action movies that are based off previously existing properties. if movies like Schindler's List and Pulp Fiction actually made money in today's market, there would be more of them. But no one wants to see those movies in a theater anymore. Further, no one even rents those. They just wait for them to pop up on their Netflix queue and watch it for 1/100th of what they used to pay for them (5 cents vs 5 dollars). Also, the studios are all owned by huge umbrella corporations who care more about the bottom line than the artistry. So sadly, it doesn't really matter what I think at the end of the day...I have to convince someone who never went to film school that my original idea is worth their investment. I have to prove to them that people will go see it. Right now the easiest way to do that is say "here's the book/comic book/game that is a huge seller. let's make a movie."

Unfortunately, it confirms how I thought it worked, and that saddens me.

But more pointedly, a movie like Battleship. Was that a bit of a gamble? How did people think a game where you call out your moves and move little plastic pegs around would translate well into a movie?

On an aside, what's hollywood think of 3d, they still want to cram it down our throats? Am I, a 3d-disliking person, in the minority of movie-goers?

don't be sad. the movie biz has always come up against these eras. look at the late 60s and the late 80s. same kind of shitty movies that people hated. in the early 90s we saw the explosion of indie cinema. i'm hoping that day is coming again...just going to take the cost of selling a movie to come down. fingers crossed that's soon.

battleship was just a studio trying to replicate the success of transformers. woops!

3D is slowly fading. will probably be relegated to animated movies soon. or maybe not. it bothers me too.

Hasn't this already started to happen with the likes of youtube sensations like like freddiew?

The guy uses dSLR's like the canon 5D mark III and consumer software like adobe after effects and premiere. Both are game changers imo. Canon brings a quality camera to the masses for a couple thousand or less, and adobe brings cheap consumer software capable of doing things major studios couldn't do 15 years ago. Indie film makers should thrive in this market, should they not?

The cost of equipment, I feel, is no longer a barrier. The barrier now still lies with the distribution and promotion system: The movie theaters, the networks, the dvds, the film festivals. All of these are controlled by the big guys.

I think youtube and the internet is changing all this, at least a little bit. The general movement society has towards consuming media off the internet as opposed to the television and movie theaters is evening the playing field. For the first time, the big players no longer control all means of promoting and viewing film and media (theaters, networks, dvds, etc). Theater attendance has decreased substantially in the past five years. You'll see a similar trend in television. People are looking online for their media fix. And online, for the first time, both big and small players share the same shelf space. The shelf space may be small, and the big guys may have an advantage of name-brand familiarity and deep pockets, but on the internet, everyone is fighting for the same free-time a consumer has available at any given moment.

Of course, the strength of the internet may be debated, but it's definitely there.

I think it's only a matter of time before indie film slowly creeps towards the success of indie music. I can see short indie films becoming popular online in the near future. It will never reach the behemoth indie music is for many reasons, but the cost of entry is no longer a barrier imo, though obviously not to the point of a $50 guitar and a microphone.

you're right on point. and -- in my opinion -- the reason tv has all the talent is because it's making money and the route of distribution is strong. people still watch tv. they don't go to the theater. i have many theories on that too, but no answers the fixing it just yet.

OP here. Thanks for your criticism. Of course you're right about the lack of a second act. Dannyboylee hit the nail on the head when he called it an "over drinks with buddies" type synopsis. If I were to write a script, I would certainly flesh that bit out. And if the bit about Jimmy Olsen being in possession of Luthor's time travel technology is a bit too Deus Ex Machina for you, I could always tweak that as well. If I wrote a script, would you be willing to look at it? And if I'm overestimating the degree to which you're interested/impressed, then maybe you have some more advice you'd be willing to give me? Maybe allow me to pick your brain as someone who's interested in breaking into the business?

This was clearly an "over drinks with buddies" kind of synopsis, not an official pitch that covers every story beat. Even so, it managed to be instantly more engaging, exciting, and entertaining than 90% of the actual pitches I've heard.

A skilled exec would hear this, throw some money at the guy and say "Great, kid, now figure out the plot points and go write it!"

I will get downvoted to oblivion for this, but are you serious? That sounds like a terrible idea for a movie.

Cast people in their 40s

Ditch John Williams' Brilliant score - one of the greatest in cinema history

An alternate future where evil reigns, gee that hasn't been done before

No Lois Lane, and Jimmy is an old codger? Which characters are we supposed to relate to?

Everything is wrapped up neatly at with one of the oldest plot devices in the book, the deus ex machina - I would much rather see superman actually solve the worlds problems instead of that rhetorical nonsense.

I'm surprised that no one caught the time paradox involved with this plot.

You have Superman shot into the future. In the future, Jimmy Olsen helps him get back to the 1940s a few moments after Superman first left. He stops Luthor and his plot to destroy society. The problem is if you change the events that made the future where Superman was first sent, it changes everything that allows him to travel back in time to the 1940s. He's stuck there. The events that stop Luthor would not happen unless Superman can still get back.

You still need Jimmy to provide the time travel technology to get Superman to the past. Once he's back, they need to do everything they can to retain the tech to make sure that in 70 years Superman gets it to go back in time and with instructions to stop Luthor and save the time machine so that in 70 years it can be done again. It creates a loop:

1) Superman is sent to the future

2) Jimmy helps Superman to get to the past

3) He stops Luthor and alters the future

4) Now that the future is altered, he has to make sure that in 70 years, when Superman arrives from the past, that he gets back again so that he can stop Luthor again

5) The cycle repeats

Worst case scenario is that Superman is not able to get back to the 1940s and the events to stop Luthor fail and he ultimately wins. The 1940s Superman has to live in the future in a lousy world he is powerless to change.

First, the cast is too old. Hamm is 41; Fey is 42; Zane is 46. I like the idea of contemporaries--but need to be 10-15 years younger. And no comedians. We keep expecting them to say something funny. Henry Cavill is the new Superman, incidentally. He's is 29.

Second, we expect more of time travel now; we expect consequence. Your synopsis stretches the third act of "Superman I" into a movie, but it's not 1979. Stargate (series) did a superb job with "Stargate: Continuum" (2008). And the "Lost" episode "The Incident" (2009), and "Star Trek" (2009). Even Doctor Who gets it now (2005- ).

Third, heroes tell us how to live with reality, not escape it. And heroes can't change the past. They live in the present. They deal with life as it is, not as they wish it were.

Want to fix it your idea? Here's how. Lex is dead, and Superman meets the family, which is slowly trying to do good and unwind all of this (and no, ffs, they don't turn out to be Secretly Evil). Does he have the right [to erase this time]? Is he Superman or Übermensch? Do we stop him? What does he do if we try? What if he fails?

OP here. Thanks for your criticisms. I'll respond to each of your three points in turn:

1) This is the only one on which I flat out disagree with you. The trend towards younger and younger actors playing superheroes is one I find irritating. Superheroes are essentially paternal figures, fantasies of fatherhood. Their wisdom should be reflected in the lines of their faces. For god's sake, his name is Superman, not Superboy. I also see Lois Lane as more of a mature woman than a plucky young girl just starting out on her dream career as a newspaper journalist. Which is precisely why I would cast Tina Fey. She exudes intelligence, and is every bit a woman, as opposed to girlish. And Lois Lane is supposed to be funny. Or more precisely, witty, in the vein of 1950's romantic comedies.

2) Here you're right. In fact I'm a big fan of Doctor Who. If I were to actually write a script based on this idea, I would absolutely try to respect the idea of time travel, and my audience's intelligence as regards that idea, as much as Russell T. Davies did.

3) The idea would be for Superman to deliver an eloquent, Capraesque speech to the people of the film's military-industrial dystopia in which he described how to live with - or more importantly, how to fix - their reality, the content of which would be pointedly relevant to our reality, but which the people do not heed, yet which the audience should. As for heroes living in the present, yes, that's all well and good, but the dystopia of the film wouldn't be his present. His present is back in the 1940's. As for heroes being unable to change the past, what, I ask you, is the point of time travel fiction if not the fantasy of being able to do just that?

Your ideas on how to fix my idea are good. But rather than no longer having Superman travel back in time to undo the last seventy years, I would simply have him hesitate before doing so, and consider exactly the questions you pose. It would make for a nice character moment, and provide an opportunity to wax philosophical, a pastime I always enjoy and something which, I think, always adds to a film.

This. That cast is way too old. I remember after watching the first season of Mad Men thinking that Jon Hamm would be the perfect Superman if he was 10-15 years younger. There's something foolish about seeing a boyishly, even naively optimistic 40-something year old man in tights, and it definitely seems like this treatment is painting Superman, and by extension America as naive. How can a 40-something who is noted for playing an philandering and somewhat cynical advertising exec be the embodiment of America's youthful past? Tina Fey is in a similar point- although I could actually see Clark Kent being into an older Lois Lane, i'm not sure how it would play to the mainstream to which this big-budget film would have to appeal. The reddit crowd, myself included finds Tina Fey very sexy, but let's face it, most of America finds her charmingly cute at best and she's no Margo Kidder. Besides, she doesn't take herself nearly seriously enough to pull off Lois Lane who is full of grit- she has sarcastic sense of humor but at no point does anybody think she is goofy, and Tina Fey, being a comedian of a certain stripe, excels at goofy. Lois Lane is a successful female professional that doesn't take shit from anybody and is even sexier because of it.. Tina Fey plays a female professional that is neurotic, goofy, and succeeds in spite of herself. I don't think the actor and the role are compatible, even ignoring the age issue.

Zane isn't required to be young, because Luthor isn't young himself. I haven't seen him in anything since Zoolander and have no idea what he looks like now though, so who knows.

I also agree with your third point as well - this movie would be a downer even with Clark Kent's uplifting monologue/article at the end. If Superman wasn't strong enough to break America out its collective cynicism- who amongst has any hope? The monologue attempts to say "all of us do," but it rings hollow in a world where even Superman had to run from what is presumably our present into a past that will never exist.

It sounds like he just took the plot to Captain America and The Dark Night and combined them. Watchmen also uses a similar twist ending in that victory only comes because of a joint hatred for an all powerful super hero. Its not bad but I wish DC movies would pick a different story structure than this one they have repeated more than once.

this is some pretentious hipster cynical bullshit. Superman is the epitome of a superhero. The archetype. He's no more out of date than any other hero, and what makes him great is exactally what fanboys of other heores love about their crushes. Except superman is as good as it gets.

He's completely selfless and virtually invincible. He is the ideal of a hero. People who dislike him for this don't understand there MUST be a superman. If superman vanished from our minds, another would take his place. And those who hate him would find themselves hating the Hulk or whoever replaces him. Go hang out on the batman bandwagon and explain that "he's real."

How they continue to fuck up such a simple premise in the movies is beyond me. We don't need additional powers (time travel), we don't need complicated relationships (superkids) and we sure as shit don't need superman lifting an island of his only weakness into outerspace!

For superman, just keep it simple. As simple as possible. Good beats evil. And you'll have a winner.

In the sequel Superman goes too far. He's always subconsciously seen humans as weak and cowardly, which is reflected in his weak willed alter ego Clark Kent. But the events of the first movie push him over the edge. The fear that people will end up as cynical and apathetic as the first movie anyway slowly eats away at him. Slowly he becomes more and more controlling. eventually he declares himself ultimate ruler of earth, not trusting anyone else to run things because they are fallible humans. He turns from a messianic figure into an almost full blown god to many people. Many people actually like his rule and it raises questions about humanities desire for observation and judgement. Ultimately a group of terrorists form and take him down with kryptonite. The irony is that his rule did stop a lot of people becoming apathetic because they were trying to kill him.

Or it's all a dream of Jimmy Olsen's directed by M. Night Shyamalan.

Seriously though I think the problem with my idea here compared to the original posts is that it's not in keeping with Superman's established character. I've always like the idea that some people have suggested that Klark Kent represents how Superman views humanity though.